Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Adds a lot beyond the annotations: read-only consequence for everyone, disappearance from list_projects and the project switcher, search semantics (`project = AN` answers empty with archivedLeftOut), continued readability via link and includeArchived, exports still working, and reversibility via unarchive_project with no data loss. Its 'Nothing is deleted' framing sits in mild tension with destructiveHint=true, though that is a nuance about visibility loss rather than a real inconsistency; the description could have said what the response shape is beyond mentioning openIssues.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first clause, and the following sentences carry real information (visibility, search behavior, reversibility, permissions). It is dense and slightly sprawling with query-syntax detail that arguably belongs in search_issues, which keeps it from a 5.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers effects, side effects, search impact, reversibility, the openIssues signal in the response, and authorization. An agent has everything needed to decide and to warn the user.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single projectKey parameter is already documented with an example ('AN'), so the description correctly needs to add little. It mentions the project by key implicitly through the `project = AN` example but adds no new semantics for the parameter itself, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Archive a whole project') and immediately scopes it to projects 'whose work is finished'. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like set_project_paused (a pause) and unarchive_project, both of which are explicitly named.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives the when ('whose work is finished'), the precondition handling for unfinished issues ('Unfinished issues do not stop it... confirm with the person when there are any'), the authorization rule ('Only the project's lead... or an admin'), and names the inverse tool unarchive_project as the alternative.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.